Sunday

Established in 1715 by Jean Martell in a town none other than Cognac, France, Martell is one of the oldest brands of cognac in the world. Owned by beverage giant Pernod Ricard, Martell offers seven types of cognac — with Cordon Bleu being its flagship product — and is available around the world as a staple of duty-free shops, with its main markets being China, the UK, Malaysia, and the U.S.. Recently, Martell introduced a new identity and packaging designed by Paris-based Yorgo & Co..

When redesigning the identity of Martell, we explored the luxury cognac house’s archives, bringing back details from 300 years of history. We drew a new swift, revived a timeless shield, created exclusive typefaces, and set the global corporate identity brand guidelines.

The old logo was fine and could have probably stayed the way it was for another fifty years and no one would have complained but, compared to the new one, it’s easier to see the lack of refinement or distinction it had, looking indistinguishable from many other spirit brands. While the same could be said for the new logo — it doesn’t break any conventions — the attention to detail is more evident and all the graphic gestures are more elegant and display better craft, in particular the new swift (the bird) with the textural lines and a more organic silhouette that doesn’t look like an airplane taking off. The Martell wordmark is nice and the removal of the yellow shadow is welcome. The accompanying typography and shield are also a great improvement that cleans up the fuzziness of the old ones for better reproduction and a classier aesthetic.

The stationery is super tricked out, its production cost can probably cover half a year of your salary.

Cordon Bleu packaging, before and after.

Without paying full attention, and even then, I doubt any consumer would notice the change in the packaging which is not necessarily a bad thing. I feel like this change benefits from a non-radical change on the shelf but, like the logo, all the small changes make for a better design.

Cordon Bleu new box and bottle.

Line-up.

Cordon Bleu details.

Boxes.

Blue Swift details.

Glasses.

Serving tray (I think).

Apron.

Metal icon on wood.

Flag.

Overall, this is a solid evolution that complements and builds upon 300 years’ worth of history and sets it up for continued success without unnecessarily rocking the boat.

Wednesday

UX of course stands for User Experience, and experience design is hot these days. The challenge in defining UX lies in its interpretation often skewed to a digital connotation. Of course, geographical locations and industries have an influence on the interpretation, but let’s not pigeonhole user experiences to digital applications, or even to design for that matter!

Thanks to the rise of the digital age, companies no longer question their digital presence, but only how they will be digitally presented. And in the case of purely digital companies (e.g. Facebook, Airbnb, Uber) user experience is manifested through the interaction design and interface of their website & apps and is mostly the star of the UX show. This recent image shows the digital emphasis on User Experience, which is often the (mis)understanding of what UX is all about:

Wikipedia claims "User experience design encompasses traditional human-computer interaction (HCI) design, and extends it by addressing all aspects of a product or service as perceived by users". UX design origins can be arguably traced to Don Norman when he was responsible for Advanced Technology at Apple and his role in product user-experience, further outlined in his book "Psychology of Everyday Things" (1988). As much as I want to lean on digital as a driver of UX design, I strongly believe user experience is much more than digital, even in a digital environment, and is the sum of all experiences, extending from product to branding to communications to customer service.

During a recent introduction visit to a world leading financial software provider, I was rather impressed to learn that they have recently grown their UX department from a handful of designers to over 200 people, many of whom have management roles and are integrating and influencing colleagues across the organisation. When I asked the Head of Design “what about the other design functions?” he looked back with a kind of blank stare. I had to then clarify “you know, (3D) packaging design, (2D) graphic design”? The answer was somewhat expected, obvious, and rather discouraging: packaging and graphics were sitting in the other buildings, completely disconnected, working under marketing. Yet again, the ominous silos.
While I understand in this case the main product is digital, we always strongly advocate that all touch points with the company/brand should be seamlessly developed and integrated to deliver an optimal user experience. Even while most software services go to the clouds, retail partners will still require a physical product/packaging of some sort to fill their physical shelves. And this is part of the overall experience and brand perception.

Further on the subject of digital landscapes, I recently attended a rather good conference in San Francisco titled 'Managing Experiences', ran by a leading UX design and consulting firm. The event had a rather extensive line up of reputable and respectable speakers. I was inspired by their efforts to position design into their respective companies. Although, being in San Francisco and near Silicon Valley, most of the representation was weighted towards the digital front. Even in this context, I was very much enlightened to hear the bold statement from Katie M. Dill, Head of Experience Design at Airbnb, who claimed in her presentation that ”90% of their users’ experiences happen outside of the website”.Seems they are on the right path and have both an interesting challenge and great opportunity ahead to utilize design to develop & deliver improved user experiences across the entire journey.

Most of the attendees I met at the conference were coming from a digital function, and were managing departments of web developers, programmers and interaction designers, much like the above illustration. I did happen to overhear a great statement made by a participant at one of the workshops, in which he stated:

“We no longer have a user experience role in our organization. User Experience is the outcome of many roles, including marketing, sales, service and design”.

In a recent LinkedIn post by UX designer Martino Liu, Martino claims “Most of the time, people confuse UX designer with a highly skilled programmer individual and a strong engineering background. The following chart shows the real thing”.

I tend to like Martino’s viewpoint, however this model seems to me suspiciously similar to the Design Thinking lens of Desirable, Viable & Feasible. A Design Thinking approach will certainly help deliver an optimal user experience, but this model implies to me that UX is again the star of the show. In my opinion, a good deal of emphasis should be made on User Experience design (management) as a strategic influencer & integrator across the journey.

When we work with clients in various consumer goods industries, digital is only one element of the overall user experience. The main experience is in the product itself (e.g. the ice cream flavor & texture, the shampoo scent and lather, the feel and sound of the clicking bricks, etc.) along with packaging, point of sale and [marketing] communications. It is in these environments where the understanding and interpretation of User Experiences gets pretty confusing. Nowadays in an omni-channel environment, the digital and physical blur, and digital is often an element incorporated in many touch points. Even packing nowadays may have a digital element integrated in it (for example LEGO augmented reality packaging).

A simple model we use at PARK is putting the user in the center surrounding them with all of the touch points they may encounter on their journey. Each one of these touch points needs to be designed and developed and seamlessly integrated with one another. This is the often the job of the (UX) design manager. However, please do not misinterpret the role of the design manager in large complex organizations. In the grand scheme, typically the responsibilities of the (UX) design manager are to drive the product/pack/formula portion while influencing or informing the “other” functions in hopes that their output is aligned with the overall design/experience intent. Too often, this is where we see the user experience being compromised, by no proper alignment or breaking down of functional silos during the development.

How your customers feel about your brand is in fact due in large to the product experience, which may or may not be largely digital, but is also heavily influenced by all other experiences along their journey. So, depending where in the world you are (industry wise), User Experience could be interpreted differently. However, like design thinking going off in different directions, I hope that the design community comes to an early consensus and clearly communicates what exactly is UX [design]. I like to put forward the claim that UX is:

“the sum of all activities that a user encounters in the process of researching, identifying, buying, sharing and interacting with a product, brand and service”.

We’ve
all done it: used the L-word in reference to a certain favorite brand. The
common assumption is when we say "I love Coke" (or whatever product
we fancy), we’re usingloveas a lazy stand-in for whatever true,
presumably lesser emotion we’re feeling—"contributing to the
trivialization of the word," as Don Draper once vented. But what if consumers who say they love a brand
actually mean it with the same emotional intensity they do when referring to a
beloved person?

It’s
a "vital question" that a research trio from Bergische University
Wuppertal in Germany, led by marketing scholar Tobias Langner, recently tried to answer. True to Don’s instinct, Langner and
colleagues concluded by way of several measures that interpersonal love is far
more intense than brand love. No big surprise there, but the work did lead to
an unexpected discovery: brands might not pack the emotional punch of a loved
one, but they do produce similar feelings to someone we like.

"The
emotionality evoked by loved brands is just as intense as that evoked by a
close friend," report Langner and company in the journalPsychology and Marketing.
"Moreover, consumers experience emotions in a brand love relation that are
even more positive than those evoked in close, interpersonal liking
relationships."

The
researchers first approached the question with structured interviews of 60
study participants about brands and people they loved and liked. They noticed
some similarities in the way participants discussed humans and items: those
that were loved felt indispensable, triggered caretaking instincts, and
enhanced a moment or experience. But beloved brands were described in rational,
highly reciprocal terms—the good had to give something back to the
consumer—whereas interpersonal love could be selfless and emotionally
one-sided.

Both
brands and people did produce positive emotions, but even the strongest brand
love didn’t meet the extremes of person love. When independent coders analyzed
the interviews for emotional statements, they found emotions present in every
single accounts of an interpersonal love relationship. The same was only true
for 90% of "close friend" relations, and 83% of "brand
love" relations. (The figure was 67% for brands we merely like.)

"Compared
with their motivations for interpersonal love, consumers are more driven by
rational benefits when they love a brand," write Langner et al.
"Although interpersonal relations might be benefit-driven too, the
anticipated benefits in interpersonal relations tend to be emotional in
nature."

The
problem with relying on interviews about love is that, almost by nature, it’s a
difficult emotion to articulate. So as a follow-up study, the researchers went
straight to the feelings themselves. They recruited 20 test participants in
committed relationships and showed them a series of pictures: the romantic
partner, a good friend, a brand they claimed to love, and a similar product
they just liked. The researchers captured skin arousal measures via electrodes
during the viewing, and later performed an emotional assessment designed to
gauge intensity and positivity.

The
physiological tests confirmed what the interviews had suggested. When
participants saw a picture of a loved person, they felt significantly more
intense emotions than when they saw their fave brand, as indicated by skin
arousal and emotional assessment. Loved ones made us all tingly; loved things,
a little less so. "Thus … interpersonal (romantic) love and brand love
constitute different emotions," they conclude.

But
the surprise came when the researchers compared responses to beloved brands
with those of close friends. They found no measurable difference in terms of
skin arousal, nor in terms of emotional intensity. And on the positivity
assessment, the loved brand actually produced warmer vibes than a good pal did.
"Thus," they write, "the assumption that close interpersonal
relations generally evoked more positive emotions than brand relations was not
confirmed." (As expected, emotional arousal, intensity, and positivity for
a loved brand were all greater than for a liked brand.)

The
researchers consider some of their results preliminary. Both studies, but
especially the bodily test, had fairly small sample sizes. Actual contact with
people or brands might have elicited different physiological responses than the
pictures did. And the termslikeand love remain not only relative from person to
person but variable within an individual.

But
it’s probably wise to think about what message you’re sending a spouse or
romantic partner next time you say you literallylovea
brand. Not to mention your best friends.

Tuesday

Six questions to ask yourself when designing a brand

Your company's logo is
the foundation of your business branding. It is probably the first interaction
that you will have with your customers. An effective logo can establish the
right tone and set the proper ethos. After years of crafting logos for
different projects, I've come up with a set of questions that I always ask
myself before delivering a new logo.

Above all design guidelines,
the most important criterion is whether the logo reflects the character of the
company. The emotions that the logo evokes should be appropriate to the company
values. For example, the Disney logo evokes a sense of happiness and optimism.
The curvy, fun typeface is appropriate for a company that has been making
cartoons and animated pictures for kids. However, a similar logo style on a
sales platform would not be appropriate.

BEHIND EVERY GREAT LOGO IS A STORY.

Designers should
understand the psychology of colors and the effect that typeface has on the
design of a great logo. For example, green promotes relaxation and usually
reflects growth, health, and the environment. Red, on the other hand, may evoke
danger and passionate emotions. Similarly for typefaces, Garamond, Helvetica,
and Comic Sans all elicit very different sentiments. Serif fonts like Garamond
promote the idea of respect and tradition, and are hence more suitable for an
environment that demands integrity such as a university or a news publisher.
Sans Serif fonts like Helvetica are clean and modern, and are well suited for
high-tech businesses. Casual script fonts like Comic Sans are probably best
left for fun companies such as toy companies. A good understanding of the
psychology of colors, typefaces, and shapes is an important part of making a
great logo.

The styling of the Disney logo is
appropriate for a company that aims to be fun, but such a style would not be
appropriate for a sales platform company.

2.
WHAT'S THE MEANING BEHIND THE LOGO?

Behind every great
logo is a story. A great logo is not about slapping your business name on a
generic shape, which is why choosing from ready-made logos is a poor idea. A
logo has to have a meaningful story. A good designer first understands the culture
of the company, the tone of the product, and the vision of the business, much
before embarking on ideas for the logo. The end result of a quality logo is
reflective of the philosophy and values of the company.

The arrow in the logo represents
that Amazon sells everything from A to Z and the smile on the customer's face
when they buy a product.

3.
WILL THE LOGO STAND THE TEST OF TIME?

How will the logo look
in two, 10, 20 years? Designers should avoid getting sucked into flavor-of
the-month trends. Trends like ultra-thin fonts and flat shadows are design
styles that will probably not stand the test of time. Simple is far better than
complex. A simple yet memorable logo can be used in 20 years without looking
dated.

A good way to test the
logo is to let it sit with you for a while before releasing it. Some logos grow
with you--the more you look at it, the more you like it. Some logos start to
feel nauseating after a while--the more you look at it, the more you hate it.
If after a couple of weeks with the logo you find it boring, the logo is
probably not strong or timeless enough.

The simplistic outline and shape of
the Apple Inc. logo allows it to endure the test of time. The first prototype
of the logo would definitely not be suitable today.

4.
IS IT UNIQUE? CAN IT BE INSTANTLY RECOGNIZABLE?

A great logo is
distinctive, memorable, and recognizable. Even if you have only seen it once,
you should still be able to remember what it looks like after a period of time.
A good way to test this is to show your logo to a friend, then cover it up and
have your friend describe the logo in a week. A fresh pair of eyes can be very
effective in figuring out the most memorable components of a logo.

In addition, if the
logo reminds you of others you have seen, it is not distinct enough.

When I begin designing
a logo, I always start in black and white. Designing with this limitation first
forces you to make sure that the logo is recognizable purely by its shape and
outline, and not by its color. A strong logo is one that is still memorable
just by its contours.

A one-color logo also
provides the benefit of using your brand easily in multiple mediums with
different backgrounds and textures.

It is much harder to recognize
the National Geographic symbol once we remove its signature
yellow color.

6.
IS IT CLEAR AND DISTINCT IN SMALL DIMENSIONS?

Another way to make
sure logos are simple and recognizable is to scale it down dramatically. Even
at tiny resolutions, a strong logo should still be recognizable at a glance.
This is also a good test to make sure that the logo is not complicated with
unnecessary design flourishes. Here, you see that the Nike, McDonalds, Twitter,
and WWF logos are still very distinct at small sizes. The GE and Starbucks
logos are far more cluttered, and less recognizable when they are small.

These are not
hard-and-fast rules, just guidelines for making an effective logo. It is still
possible to make a strong, complicated logo, but understand the trade-offs.

Branding Links

Content Disclaimer

The views and opinions expressed in the media, articles or comments on this blog are those of the speakers or authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by BrandingBook.blogspot.com. The editorial staff of BrandingBook.blogspot.com oversees and administers the site based on our editorial policy but should not be held accountable for all of the information you may find on this web site.

BrandingBook.blogspot.com does not warrant the accuracy, timeliness or completeness of the information contained on our blog. If you have a particular complaint about something you've found on this blog, please contact us.